Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

November 30, 2004 – January 15, 2005

Proposal to remove consistent synonym recommendation.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling contains a recommendation about words with variant spellings where their spellings are typical of different forms of English:

If the spelling appears within the article text, also consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre.

The sentence fist appeared on June 29 of this year, added by Adamsan.[1] There is no related discussion on the talk pages of that period. I myself first noticed it on October 18 when looking through Maureen's draft trim. I was surprised that I had not noticed it before. My comment was:

This advice is horrendous! Is there another style guide in the world that would suggest one should reconsider using normal, everyday English words because they have more than one common spelling? The result of this, if people paid any attention, would be a non-standard Wikipedia dialect of English, limited to spelling-neutral vocabulary. Better to go with a fixed spelling, whether US or Britsh or whatever, than this![2]

Maureen suggested, quite rightly, that we not deal with substantive changes when considering the draft trim, and I let the matter pass at that time.

I believe the sentence should be removed because:

1 Advice of this kind almost certainly does not appear in any other English style guide or style manual.

Generally Wikipedia follows the standard styles recommended by other manuals, sometimes choosing one recommendation over another.

2 Following this recommendation to any great extent, that is doing more than simply considering, would produce a non-standard English within Wikipedia.

Common, ordinary words used widely in English would be discouraged in Wikipedia alone. The deprecation rules would be seen as a joke to any reader who knew of this policy, who would giggle to see hue used so widely in place of semi-banned color/colour, taste instead of flavor/flavour, brimstone instead of sulphur/sulphur. The result of this bias against normal words would not be a neutral English but a bogus, neutered English.

Actually it's seasoning rather than flavor/flavour in the case of potato chip. There was a protracted (lame) edit war on this, and although silly, changing this one word did end it. zoney ♣ talk 18:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3 This recommendation has no consensus.

I do not believe this new recommendation is widely known. On the Village Pump jguk attempted to gain support for a stronger implementation of this rule, without mentioning the weaker version on the MoS. He got no support. Maurreen recently brought up the matter on this page, asking if anyone supported jguk's proposal. There was no response. I believe this indicates no interest in the spirit of this rule.

4 This recommendation is a dangerous tool for spelling conflict.

There many debates now about whether particular spellings should be used in particular articles without this in addition. The article White guilt, contained British spellings from its creation on February 4 of this year, until a revision by Spleeman's August 20 reduced three occurrences of the word colour into two occurrences of the form color. At that time these occurrences of colour were the only remaining specifically British forms, though some subsequently appeared. On November 18, Iota, who had previously done a major overhall on the article, made some further changes and, in particular, changed to the occurrences of color to colour and mentioned in the edit summary: "restandardised to BE which has been in article since early on". The following day Darrien changed the references to people of colour to blacks, a change he explained by the edit summary: "Use neutral English". When I suggested on the talk page that the change was an incorrect one, Darrien cited the rule here being discussed. Darrien has previously been vigorous in pushing American spelling ... not always wrongly in my view. But a rule encouraging a change of this kind seems questionable, a method of forcing out spellings one does not like. I suppose someone could now fight back back by forcing similar "neutral" English on articles Darrien has written, citing this same rule. I do not think this was the intended purpose of the rule and I do think that the neutered English that would result is what most people want here.

Is there any support for retaining this rule?

Jallan 04:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

For any and all of those reason, I agree with deleting it. Besides that, it's not written very clearly. Maurreen 06:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, I added that in the hope that it would be used sensibly to avoid conflict rather than cause it. I'm all for a debate though and apologise for not running it through a consultation beforehand.

I disagree that it encourages the use of 'bogus, neutered English' as surely all words in a Wikipedian's standard lexicon are as 'authentic' as each other? It is up to the editor's personal choice as to the vocabulary he uses so whether or not people 'giggle' at it is a subjective decision. Is 'hue' really an intrinsicly funny word or does it have a valid role to play in certain sentences? Additionally I stressed that only consideration should be given as the advice can work in certain cases. I am not suggesting that Sulphur/Sulfur be moved to Brimstone but I note that Railroad and Railway redirect to Rail Transport. Some may giggle at the choice, but the practice of choosing consistent synonyms clearly exists and should be managed in some way.

Nor am I suggesting that all articles be rewritten in neutrally-spelt English, merely that the use of this system may in some cases reduce conflict in already contentious topics.

Is there any style guide that has to cope with numerous different regional orthographies? The wiki MoS has evolved in the face of differring styles from around the world whilst the style guides I have used in the past have been targeted at users of British or American English only. If we are breaking new ground in the subject by producing a style guide for all then past examples are invalid on this subject.

I think the example of the conflicts at White Guilt has more to do with the editor's choice of a poor synonym rather than a fault with the whole concept of choosing different words to make the text easier on the reader's eye. If colored/coloured is really the best word to choose then it should be used and spelt consistently.

As I say, I worded this as advice, that consideration should be given to the idea. No more than that. If the implementation needs tightening then I would be pleased to join in any effort to do this but I feel the idea has merit and although the style guide didn't mention it, this practice is occurring and needs to be acknowledged or things really will start happening in the manner of the Doomsday scenario Jallan describes. adamsan 09:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because it says "consider", I see your point. But I've also seen "neuterization" of the language. I don't know what the solution is to the overall problem. That is, how we could get people not to get so excited about the issue of spelling and other national preferences. Maurreen 17:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But then how is 'hue' more neutered than 'colour/color'? I can't understand this premise that some words are blander than others. If you mean that the advice contributes to the impoverishment of the language, I would disagree. If an editor is encouraged to give more consideration to the vocabulary he is using then surely it will contribute to a more varied and diverse use of English?

I agree that there are wider issues here though. adamsan 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is one situation where I think a Google test is appropriate.

Hue: 2.9 million

Colour: 143 million

Color: 179 million

This indicates to me that people are more likely to use the word “colour” than “hue” by a factor of about 50 to 1. “Hue” in at least general contexts has no other possible merit over either spelling of the word. It would sound stilted and awkward if all instances of “color” or “colour” were changed to “hue.” Maurreen 18:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, "Rail transport" isn't neutral. The U.S. version would be "Rail transportation". "Trains" might be better all around. Maurreen 18:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Trains" would not be acceptable to me - it's quite simply incorrect as a general form in British English. Contrast "train station" and "railway station" (the latter is the correct title in the British Isles and elsewhere). I should also point out, that it is simply not possible to acheive consensus on many topics. See rail terminology. The vocabulary for rail topics evolved almost completely separately in the US and UK (and even separate elsewhere). So topics (such as railroad tie vs. sleeper) simply have to be named one or the other. zoney ♣ talk 18:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of this rule. I have only ever seen it cited by spelling partisans who use it as a justification for replacing spellings they dislike. - SimonP 19:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that when it comes to things that need their own page titles then any attempt to regularise orthography fails horribly. And I am not suggesting that we do a Wiki-wide Find and Replace, like globally changing 'colour' to 'hue'; that would indeed be ridiculous. What I was hoping to achieve was to avoid low-level spelling conflicts when less important words like 'center' get needlessly changed to 'centre' in articles on..I don't know... Grasshoppers or something. By encouraging use of consistent synonyms (and thesaurus.com lists about 30 for centre as a noun alone) I hope that the wiki can produce articles where editing time is not wasted arguing about spelling. A possible side benefit is that editors will use more varied language, thereby widening everyone's vocabulary! Hooray! :-) adamsan 19:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A recommendation only to "consider" is hardly a recommendation. It could just as well be replaced by its opposite:

But if the spelling appears within the article text, normally it is not necessary to consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre.

This strongly implies that in some cases such consideration might have value (which is true) and appears to be closer to adamsan's intent as stated than what was written. I would find this far more acceptable.

But is there use in stating something so obvious when the number of times when it can be valuably employed are few and specialized and probably obvious.

"Railway" and "railroad" are different words, which is another issue, though in such cases forced attempts to find neutral synonyms are sometimes worth a giggle at tightrope attempts to balance two opposed usages. But such articles will normally use both terms in their respective enviroments, speaking of railroads in Britain and railways when talking of the United States, rather than banning the words altogether.

But that some few find color and center intolerable and some few find colour and centre intolerable should not influence most people's choice of words at all. Why should I consider using middle over centre or center only to placate spelling bigots, those who dispise one or the other of the spellings, who think a particular spelling is correct rather than merely conventional? And who else but spelling bigots care about the matter? Books appear world wide with words spelled variously and most people don't particularly notice the spelling in most of what they read. If the U.S. converted totally to British spelling, what real difference would it make? If Britain converted totally to U.S. spelling, what real difference would it make? People would still be writing and reading exactly the same words. Choice of a word should very rarely have to do with avoiding words that have more than one spelling. How many writers anywhere have ever normally avoided a word because it has more than one spelling?

Jallan 19:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good points. I agree that this cannot be enforced in a hard-and-fast way but disagree that it can only be employed on rare occasions; there are lots of examples of centre, labor, grey, licence and practise cropping up in article texts. I realise that the MoS prefers rules rather than recommendations however and if we can only put comments in it that refer to contextual things then this would be better off elsewhere. As to the spelling bigots, using a non-controversial spelling will keep them off your watchlist! I am not spelling bigot and like to respect the hard-fought conventions so far thought up. I am concerned at the time, effort and vitriol spent chopping and changing and I suppose my addition to the MoS looking for a way out of this problem. As for books, they have one author who can write what he wants, the wiki has lots of us jostling to edit away, all with our different Englishes. adamsan 19:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there are incidences where using a synonym (or some other explanation of terms that are used) is particularly desirable. I'm thinking of words and phrases that are so peculiarly British or American or Australian, or whatever, that they have not entered into general International usage. (See List of British English words not used in American English; List of American English words not used in British English; List of words having different meanings in British and American English; Britishism.) Using words on these lists (without further explanation) will just confuse international readers - entirely if terms like "public school" are bandied about liberally.

Clearly this doesn't apply to "colour". Anyone understanding the word "colour" will also understand the word "color" and vice versa. So may I just that we change policy so that we advise either to avoid using words peculiar to a particular type of English or, failing that, to require explanation? jguk 22:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this very good piece of advice should be abandoned entirely. It's a good tool for compromise. Over at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, we recently dealt with the athletes/sportspeople/sportspersons/whatever confusion by choosing "Olympic competitors" instead. Not only is the intended meaning conveyed unambiguously, but the new terminology has the potential of including Olympic teams, making it more useful.

Words like center/centre and colour/color are not good examples. Communication is not impeded by choice of one or the other. Your average American has no trouble with (and in fact may not notice) an occurence of colour. This technique is more useful with words like athletes, where the same word conveys very different information. Our goal should be mutual understanding. Spelling variations do not hinder understanding (usually), but other usage variations can.

jguk's reference to the lists of words specific to one variety of English was very appropriate. Those are the kinds of words that may require a compromise. Minor spelling variations do not. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This part of the style guide should be kept. It is a useful way to resolve edit conflicts over spelling. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:45, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I can see some value in resolving edit wars, and that might be worth a compromise in the style guide. But why can't edit wars be resolved using the general guidance on national preferences? Maurreen 04:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Maureen. This recommendation says nothing about words with different meanings, or different words with the same meaning. Those are entirely different issues.

The sentence, unlike the previous sentence, talks only about spellings and nothing else. Recommendations about the other issues are a different matter entirely and probably unnecessary.

But a bias against words which by accident of history have multiple spellings is objectively as arbitrary as a bias against words with double consonants or against words with the letter r. Attempting to write a passage avoiding words that have multiple spellings, or which have double consonants, or which contain the letter r are good writing exercises to encourage thinking about words and meanings and to encourage the discovery of new ways to put things. That is what such arbitrariness is good for. (And it can be very good for it.) But it should be left for such exercises.

Being concerned about words with multiple spellings is only an issue within Wikipedia because 1) Wikipedia allows different spellings for the same word within its compass and 2) because some users are at some times bothered by this inconsistancy when they notice it. Often they don't.

Yet adamsan has made clear he does not intend strong use of this rule. He is only inviting editors to consider the rule. Well, I consider what follows the word consider and reject it totally, which by that interpretation is total obedience to the rule. But that strictly literal interpretation is not adamsan's intent in creating the rule and surely not what most would consider to be following the rule. "Consider accepting Jesus as your Savior!" "Consider using sock puppets to win the argument!" "Consider giving to the Heart Fund!" "Consider writing in capital letters!". In such expressions consider is an rhetorical (and somewhat slippery) politeness, a way of alleviating the impact, but not the force, of the following recommendation. But the following recommendation still stands. And I don't feel that it lessens a harmful recommendation by preceding it with consider. One is not asking the editor only to consider. One is recommending.

Instead I rewrite radically without the rhetorical consider, taking into account adamsan's explanations:

In choosing words or expressions, where there are alternatives that are otherwise equally suitable, select one without multiple spellings.

I still disagree. This is a unique and unnatural constraint. We enter the realm of very silly political correctness, ~~favoring~~ preferring the spelling-neutral, even if we can only do so slightly. Why this bias?

If Wikipedia imposed a single system of spelling, we would be free of all fighting on the issue. That's one reason publishing houses and academic journals and individual publications usually do this. The difference between organization and organisation is an arbitrary, historic accident, and usually isn't worth the trouble of arguing. Far easier and convenient for almost everyone to arbitrarily impose one spelling or another and by that arbitrary and irrational and fascist restriction gain the unfettered freedom to not be concerned with debating about something as relatively unimportant and often unnoticed as the spelling.

We don't do this in Wikipedia. Wikipedia instead encourages multiple spelling systems with a bias towards a spelling systen used in the country about which an article is written (when the article is particuarly related to a single country) and otherwise generally following the spelling of the first main author of an article. There are other subtleties. But the philosophy is that multiple spellings are generally encouraged.

So conflict arises which would not arise under a system standardized on a single spelling. And had Wikipedia begun with a single spelling imposed, regardless of which one, I suspect most would accept whichever system was in place with little complaint and there would be no consensus to change. Worrying about spelling is not what most are here for and it might be much nicer to just gripe about not being able to spell the way we want instead of again and again and again having to spend time and energy defending our preferred spellings. But we do encourage multiple systems of spelling and so must accept the quarreling that goes with it. Individuals can, if they choose, simply ignore the matter, not caring about any spelling changes that might be made to their writing by others.

But suddenly, a unique rule appears, with a different philosopy, presumably to minimize the visual clashes of the different spelling systems and minimizing the arguing. The method is simple. Don't use words that have multiple spellings and then everyone will spell the same and there will be no clash of spelling systems and no arguments. Of course, in fact, nothing so drastic is possible. We don't have exact synonyms for many multiple spelling words. Some of those words are very common ones that we can't drop almost universally without seeming very stilted and artificial. But since every little bit helps, perhaps going some small way in that direction would be an improvement.

No.

A small way which would be hardly noticeable is not an improvement, if in fact we can very seldom unarguably find proper synonyms and synonymous expressions. And who wants to go a large way in that direction. (I will get into that later.)

But the price to pay, in either case, is another level of complexity to argue over.

Instead of accepting that the spellings color and cozy might appear in an article on the American west and the spellings colour and cosy in an article on modern Winchester, the editors are now supposed to also consider whether the words colo(u)r or co<s/z>y themselves should appear in either article, a consideration that goes against any previous recommended practice in Wikipedia and any recommended practice anywhere outside of Wikipedia.

Those who don't care much about spelling either way would now find the words they wrote being replaced by other words to pacify the potential spelling-warriors. Good English words like co<s/z>y would be banned from Wikipedia because one could always use something like comfortable and homely instead. Helpful lists of deprecated words would appear with appropriate synonyms and synonymous expressions beside them. Don't use color or colour unless absolutely necessary: use hue, tint, shade, chroma, glow, radiance, sheen, pallor. Never use center or center, use middle, central point, mid-point. Never use travel(l)ed, always journeyed. Never use flavo(u)r, always taste, or seasoning. Can you write a recommendation that would not reasonably be extended to this? Is this a good thing? This is what the current rule actually recommends, even as rewritten by me, without the oratorical consider. And I will not consider doing this. Do you think that others would not fight against anyone trying to impose such a general bias against normal English words? But that is what the rule calls for, replacement of word after word of standard English if synoynms can be found. That such substitutions might solve an individual spelling dispute here or there does not indicate a need for a rule encouraging such subsitutions as general practice. If two editors are so intent on forcing one or another spelling system on a particular article that the only compromise they can come to is banning words of mixed spelling from the article, I can think of another solution that would be less harmful to standard English use. Ban the editors. (Or flip a coin.) Otherwise this will spread like a virus. Article after article in this neutralized spelling with no words allowed which would break the forced neutrality that few editors have agreed on. An editor comes upon one of these articles, sees something that could be improved or should be added, unwitting actually uses a word that has more than one spelling (Horror!), and is jumped on. We now have have articles that are written using American spellings, using Canadian spellings favoring colour, using Canadian spellings favouring color, using British English spelling -ize, using British/Australian spelling -ise, and also now another set of articles in artificial word-biased spelling-neutral English in which most -o(u)r words, -l(l)- words, -re/er words, -i<s/z>e -n<s/c>e words, and (a)e words are forbidden. Word after word after word, forbidden to be used in Potato chips and in how many other articles?

In fact, differences in spelling are mostly hardly noticed. When adamsan added the new rule, did he notice that at that time the MoS already contained a mixture of spellings? How many others read the MoS and did not notice (or just grinned with amusement). I recently emended the MoS to impose a single spelling, more from a feeling that a style guide should follow its own rules than from any personal feeling that it was really necessary. Multiple spellings in a single article, despite being universally deprecated, generally don't do any harm, and are likely not to be noticed. It is notorious how difficult it is for many to notice differences in spellings within the same work, even when searching for them. How many can you spot?[3] In the current cleaned-up version only one remains, a purposeful one.

Jallan 04:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This rule contributes nothing. It is one of the charms of the Wikipedia and one of the founding principles of the style guide (more at "notorious quote" below) that either "British" or "American" spelling is acceptable. The rule imagines that a synonym for a word is better, somehow, than including or not including a U in a spelling. Ortolan88 00:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This rule does not have my support because it actively deprecates best practice. In the preceding sentence, for instance, the recommendation would be to consider using an alternative to the word "practice" simply because it is sometimes spelt differently . The best practice here would be to write redirects from variant spellings. Whilst synonyms contribute to the richness of the English language, they should never be used simply to harmonise spelling. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk]] 13:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Synonym rule rewording

I think I have read most of the above. Good points on all sides. Something optional for editors to consider is never obvious to everyone and is therefore worth including if it will add to the number of people who become aware of the idea. In principle I agree with adamsan on this one, but I prefer the less recommendatory alternative suggested near the end, with a further reduction in "instruction", ie rearranging to produce something like this:
"Words with multiple spellings: in choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings where there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable."
Robin Patterson 23:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robin Patterson makes a sound recommendation. I have tweaked it slightly below.

"Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable."

Even though we might not all see this as perfect, I think it's a good compromise, because of the way it has been worded and the fact that there is close division.

Does anyone object? Maurreen 16:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quotation in the style guide

Material which is taken verbatim from another source generally deserves to noted as such. In the lead section of our style guide, attribution to The Chicago Manual of Style was removed, and I am going to restore it. Maurreen 11:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jguk has replaced this:

In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice: Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

with this:

But rules on style (like not starting sentences with a conjunction) are made to be broken. They are not observed rigidly and they change with time. Any guide has its limitations, and where necessary or appropriate, they are diverged from.

I diagree with this change. For one thing, it is no improvement, there is no need. For another, saying Rules are made to be broken is much stronger than saying that rules aren’t rock-ribbed law. Maurreen 19:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The improvement I am seeking is to change the beginning of the article from having an academic and USian feel, to being neutral and inclusive. Since we ask all Wikipedians wherever they are and whatever their background to use this Manual of Style guide, it should adopt an inclusive approach. jguk 19:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sentiment in the quotation is universal to every style guide I am familiar with and is not in the least bit "USian" (hmm, pretty "stylish" word) and the replacement wording was much weaker. There is plenty of "Britainian" sentiment in the style guide, including all the stuff about spelling and use of quotations, for instance. The qauotation has also been in the style guide since its very first iteration. As the paragraph two below says, don't make fundamental changes (such as replacing the epigraph) without discussion. Ortolan88 19:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC), original author/compiler of style guide

I've no idea what "Britainian"'s meant to mean. Maybe it's one of these purely American words that needs explaining to others. Anyway, my point is that I think the article should be neutral. Putting British comments in is hardly neutral from an Australian, South African, Indian, New Zealand, Canadian, Nigerian, Kenyan, etc. perspective. I'd happily get rid of all the references to British style guides too. Finally, a quotation from a style guide that is not adopted as the Wikipedia style is not fundamental, and neither are edits to it. After all, as we are constantly reminded: if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. :) OK, I'm being a bit cheeky and a bit flippant. But everything can be improved, and making policy internationally neutral is an improvement. After all, you may have started the article, but can you as an American honestly say you (at least subconsciously) did not adopt a USian POV? jguk 20:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, anything can be changed. And then changed back. And Jguk, because you are the person seeking the change, and the person at least apparently in the minority so far, the burden is on you to persuade others.

I'm not aware of anyone else offended by a quotation from a U.S. book. Are we to neutralize anything that is related to any country? Or set quotas?

I asked some time ago, early during your poll on "U.S." and serial commas, about your preference for what you call language neutrality. Neither you nor anyone else responded.

If you want language neutrality, I ask you to do that discussion. Maurreen 21:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I disagree with any intention to remove the statement because of any US/UK bias, it does seem silly to include a quotation from a style guide when the guide is not used for wikipedia, and it is just a seemingly minor paragraph. It seems to be offering a justification for this statement when none is needed. --NeilTarrant 21:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a trivial point, and I suspect you may have been partially ironic when you said "I've no idea what "Britainian"'s meant to mean" , but I think it was itself an ironic response to your use of the Wikipedia colloquialism / neologism "USian". [Although perhaps "UKian" would have been a better equivalent.] As for whether the quote should stay or go, here are my thoughts:

there is no "bias" inherent in quoting a particular style guide; it doesn't imply the superiority of that guide, or its country of origin.
nor is there any reason not to replace the quote with something better, if the quote is felt not to reflect the message intended.
however, the replacement used, as pointed out, produces quite a radical change in the tone or degree of the message, which warrants specific discussion. There is an old page called Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - a proposed rule that proved rather controversial; a lot of people feel that bending the rules (as implied by the original quote) is significantly different from breaking them (as implied by the revised line).
if we don't want to make this significant change, I don't see any reason not to keep the quote as is; sure, we could put it in the words of one or more Wikipedians, rather than one or more Chicagans, but really, why bother? - IMSoP 23:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to see the quote from / referral to an external US source removed. If necessary, a suitable replacement can be written (I'm not suggesting the replacement offered thus far is acceptable). zoney ♣ talk 23:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style is to be used for deciding Wikipedia style, as are the other works referenced in the MoS. That is stated in the MoS in the section When All Else Fails. That the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides agree on something has often been one reason why consenus has been reached on various issues of style. Where they disagree, then a special rule may be necessary in Wikipedia, or the matter may left up to individual editors to choose which style to follow. And the custom of quoting something which is especially well said from another work is a common one. jguk has continually attempted to change the meaning of passages in the MoS under guise of a trim. He wishes, it seems, to remove most indications of other works that may be consulted.

The MoS is not neutral. No prescriptive style guide is. Wikipedia's rules are not neutral. Had things been somewhat different when Wikipedia was set up, we would have somewhat different rules, perhaps worse, perhaps better, probably a bit of both. I have no problem with quotations from Australian style guides or South African style guides or a newspaper style guide from anywhere in the world, if what is said is is well said and appropriate. But there is no such thing as internationally neutral policy. Spelling, grammar rules, punctuation rules, and vocabulary differ from region to region and according to different kinds of writing and according to individual house style.

The Chicago Manual of Style is one of the most prestigeous style guides in the world for general writing and gains authority because it is so widely referenced. It is so widely referenced because it is very complete and very, very good, not because of any compulsion to reference it. A decision not to recognize The Chicago Manual of Style is no more neutral than one that recognizes it. That the Oxford Guide to Style is not listed, might be seen as non-neutral. So list it. But then what of Canadian style guides, and Australian style guides. So list one from each country. But which guide for each country? Then there are other guides as well. You could list every style guide known in the world, which would be silly, and the listing would still not be neutral, as it would suggest all had the same authority, which would be very non-neutral position to take.

Replacing a quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style with one's own words, is anything but neutral, especially when a change of meaning occurs. Replacing it with the words of any particular Wikipedian would similarly not be neutral.

Since jguk disagrees so greatly with the MoS as it stands, perhaps he might draft a complete new guide without worrying about the old one, remembering that one way is often as good as another, and that therefore the amount of work to change Wikipedia on any single policy to another that is no better itself speaks against any radical changes in style.

Jallan 06:05, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good points have been made for referring to external sources, and not paraphrasing sections from them. Also it seems fair enough having such references with both the Chicago MoS and Fowlers referred to for US and British practice respectively. zoney ♣ talk 17:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quotation is there as an epigraph. It is a quotation about style guides. I suggest that rather than all this fuss, someone go out and find a nice John Bull quotation that says the same thing and add it to the one from the Chicago Manual of Style. The purpose of the quotation was to set the tone for the style guide as open and casual as opposed to closed and rigid.

Is there any objection to the sentiment of that quotation? I'll repeat it here:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

It is for the purposes of expressing that idea and placing the MOS in context that the quotation is included, not to establish "USian" hegemony (and yes, my "Britainian" was making fun of this silly coinage). Ortolan88 00:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Might I point to The Economist's [Style Guide] (I must say I find the phrase 'Manual of Style' sounds rather pompous). The first page of that quote's George Orwell's [rules]. --KayEss 04:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jguk's changes

Is anyone interested in discussing Jguk's recent changes? Please see the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&action=history. Maurreen 11:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or see diff between the versions of 18:55 26 Nov 2004 and 11:06 27 Nov 2004.

I totally agree with them. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support all the changes visible in a diff between the versions of 18:55 26 Nov 2004 and 11:06 27 Nov 2004. —AlanBarrett 13:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the diff above. zoney ♣ talk 20:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully support all the changes between the versions quoted by AlanBarrett. -- Arwel 00:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reject these totally. Separate changes should be discussed separately, not altogether in a package. One thing at a time, please. I totally disagree with removing references to source material. We should have more referencest, rather than less. Document your sources. There are changes within this I do agree with, but am tiring of Jguk mixing of changes of different kinds together in a package. And is it Jguk's plan that throughout the manual of style, whenever mentioned, both period and full stop must be replaced by perfiod/full stop or full stop/period or similar concatinations? I am happy with either period and full stop. Neither bothers me. And the MoS, of all places, should not display such bad style as to repeat the synonyms again and again. It's rather insulting to the intelligence of the reader. And it looks like pandering to chauvinism. Jallan 23:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Jallan. Further:

Saying "Fowler has guidelines for this" is weaker than "Fowler has good guidelines for this".
Combining "full stop" and "period" as he has done does not follow the spirit of the style guide in that either British or American English is acceptable. It doesn't say both are required. Nor does it follow this: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another."
Changing the section on serial commas from "is used" to "should be used" weakens it.
About using periods to abbreviate "United States": It is weakened by deleting "we want one uniform style on this".

I'd also like to point out that Jguk recently held a poll about the serial commas and "U.S." He failed to gain a majority. This is even though the poll was biased by him giving rationale for his proposals without giving equal prominence to any rebuttals.

If Jguk wants to weaken the style guide, or change it so it doesn't follow its own style, that calls for discussion. Maurreen 04:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I consider it wholly unacceptable that an essential piece of Wikipedia's guidelines be written using a minority dialect. Wikipedia is not a US project, and should use international English. Consider the article full stop - it appears "period" does not even technically speaking only refer to the punctuation mark placed at the end of a sentence. zoney ♣ talk 11:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. How do you figure American English is a minority dialect?
2. If having the style guide in American English is unacceptable, does that mean that you believe the style guide should not follow the style guide?
3. How do you define "international English", and what is your reference? Maurreen 16:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's article on American English: "As of 2004, nearly three out of every four English speakers are American." Maurreen 16:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That surely refers to people whose first language is English. I'm basing my judgement on the fact that there are more Europeans than people from the US (and generally even outside the British Isles in Europe, US English is not used. Certainly the EU uses standard (British) English), and then when you factor in other English-speaking regions (including those using it as a second language), US English most certainly falls in second place. Of course "minority dialect" is a gross exaggeration, but I used the term to express my frustration.

I am indeed aware that my objection to the Manual of Style being written in US English is contrary to the manual itself, however, as with all Wikipedia instructions, the Manual of Style is itself a "general case" set of guidelines (not to be applied rigidly). I believe that the MoS and other such pages are deserving of special attention to either be written in International English or indeed "neutered/neutral" English.

By International English of course, I mean specifically non-US (and yes such spellings are used in some other locations, but they are generally US in origin).

I am entirely aware as to how contentious my comments are, and am merely expressing them as opposed to idly standing by and pretending that the current situation is acceptable to all. And while generally I think many people are happy not to cause a fuss over language, I think it is fair to say that a sizable number of Wikipedians have the same concerns as I have.

zoney ♣ talk 16:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zoney, I have to correct you on something. You say that people in Europe who speak English as a second language tend to use British-English. I dispute that. I taught English as a foreign language (TEFL) when I was in my 20s for a few years all over Europe in private language schools. Without exception, people wanted to learn American-English. They preferred the sound of it and the spelling; and they felt it was the language of the future, and the language of business and commerce. They would sometimes get annoyed if they were offered a British teacher. As for the EU, the only reason their English-language material is in British-English is because it's written by Brits. I'm not saying British-English shouldn't be preserved by Brits (and by Wikipedia), but it shouldn't be presented as though it's the majority dialect, because that simply isn't true. Do a few Google searches if you doubt this. Here's one: the British "encyclopaedia" has 2,420,000 entries. The American "encyclopedia" has 15,800,000. Slim 17:48, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

While you may be right, all you are presenting is your personal experience as regards TEFL in Europe. Besides, I would think many TEFL teachers in Europe are Irish or British. Certainly many students here at my University do the course (to be a qualified TEFL teacher) to make some money.

An Internet search is less than useful in discerning the percentage of US English usage. The US is disproportionately represented on the Net, not just compared to UK/Irl but the rest of the world. Some areas of the world are vastly under-represented online. Certainly English-language websites from countries where English is not the first language are even more sparse! And finally, encyclopedia (without the ae), is of course, a commonly accepted spelling variant even in the UK or Ireland! Colour vs color is a better comparison, but even so, the Internet results are non-indicative of actual English usage around the world (for the reasons detailed).

I do not accept your rebuttal.

zoney ♣ talk 18:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise?

Because the word "period" is apparently offensive to some people, why don't we compromise on that issue somehow, and restore the differences concerning:

"U.S."
Fowler's good guidelines
serial comma

Maurreen 16:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The amendments to the first and third are a compromise, and they aren't enormous changes either. You seem to object to deletion of the phrase "we prefer it that way", which isn't necessary, and does not correspond with the poll results which showed half of those responding don't prefer it that way. Quite what's wrong with removing the opinion that Burchfield's guidelines are "good", I don't know. Readers can decide for themselves on Burchfield (personally I think some of what he writes is good, some bad). Finally, whether it is relevant or not, I do not know, but there appears to be a clear US/non-US divide here. I would ask US contributors to recognise this and not to try the "US has more English speakers than the rest of the world" argument to force a US POV. jguk 20:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References to numbers for American English were made in response to Zoney's suggestion that it is a minority dialect. Maurreen 16:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archive?

Because this page is so long, and because the discussion is continued below, does anyone mind if this section is archived? Maurreen 17:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This section is effectively the start of a larger section comprising Jguk's changes, Neutrality, RfC, Fowler, Period, Serial comma and "U.S.". I would like to continue the "U.S." discussion a bit unless you feel it has been accepted that the whole "U.S." policy should be removed. This is because I can't understand how having "U.S." makes it easier to search for things, particularly in the light of comments already made there. I have no objection to the remainder of the discussions are archived en masse. However, in the light of your query under "Serial comma" and my response thereto, I would oppose archiving the "Jguk changes" section without archiving those other sections. jguk 19:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

A few people here have made comments more or less that they don't see what the big deal is. I can empathize with them to a degree. But in my view, an overblown discussion is at least better than edit wars or revert wars, for one example. I hope this comes across the right way; I mean it only as explanation. Maurreen 07:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's work to an acceptable alternative to the quote at the top

Currently the Manual of Style starts with:

In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice: Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

In line with the discussion above, let's see if we can write our own Wikipedia version of this. Ie a version that retains the sentiment, but without the need to make an outside reference.

I'll start off, perhaps other editors can make tweaks as they see appropriate. jguk 11:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where to put this, so I'm dropping this in here. For what it's worth, when I first read the style guide I had to skip the first quotation. It just didn't mean anything. What does "with the fixity of rock-ribbed law" mean? I've never come across the phrase rock-ribbed law before and can only assume a meaning. Is this really the best way to start a style guide? Now I will admit that I didn't learn english as my first language, but it wasn't far off (I was two years old when I moved to the UK), but I don't hide from American english. I have a hard time noticing the spelling stuff and find most of the differences quaint (at least those few I do notice). If we want to leave it in, can we at least link the phrase to something that tells us what we mean? I don't understand how the argument above about the strength of a re-wording being stronger or weaker makes any sense when one of the terms isn't even defined. --KayEss 18:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would guess "rock-ribbed law" is an expression the author created, as a metaphor for "not absolute." Maurreen 07:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So nobody knows what it means? Seems an odd way to start a style guide - especially to express that the rules aren't to be followed blindly and exceptions should be allowed. --KayEss 09:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't know what it means. I will clarify: I believe the author of the quote created the expression "rock-ribbed law". It is a metaphor for "absolute." Maurreen 16:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

rock-ribbed is a long established English adjective that is hardly confusing to anyone who stops to think what it might mean. Since that seems to be a large group, here is the definition, from a well known British dictionary, headquartered at a well known British university, citing both British and American uses, from the 18th century on:

rock-ribbed, a. [rock n.1]

1. Having ribs of rock.

1776 Mickle tr. Camoens Lusiad v. 212 And Me the rock-ribb'd mother gave to fame.

1841 Bryant "Thanatopsis" 38 The hills Rock-ribb'd and ancient as the sun.

1900 Scribner's Mag. Sept. 293/2 Nearer and nearer we drew to the rock-ribbed, ice-encompassed shore.

2. fig. Resolute, uncompromising, staunch; esp. of political allegiance. orig. U.S.

1887 Courier-Jrnl. (Louisville, Kentucky) 3 May 414 Mr. Straus is a rock-ribbed Democrat.

1911 H. S. Harrison Queed 292 Various feelings had gradually stiffened an early general approval into a rock-ribbed resolve.

1925 T. Dreiser Amer. Trag. (1926) I. i. xvi. 122 Clyde always struck her as one who was not any too..rock-ribbed morally or mentally.

1950 Manch. Guardian 20 Feb. 6/6 The dyed-in-the-wool Democrat can be fanatical in devotion to his party's creed and traditions. So can the rock-ribbed Republican.

1961 Economist 28 Oct. 341/2 He is a man of such rock-ribbed integrity.

1969 Daily Tel. 11 Oct. 12 A Massachusetts seat that has always been held by rockribbed Republicans.

1976 Publishers Weekly 16 Apr. 88/1 Goldwater, rockribbed in his sincerity, speaks for many Americans currently disenchanted with Washington's government-by-bureaucracy.

OED quotation inserted by me, Ortolan88

Interesting. However it's worth noting that most of those references are either American publications or referring to US politics. I've been reading quite extensively for, oh, going on 40 years now, and not encountered the term in normal UK usage. -- Arwel 23:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup. I don't think that anyone would suggest that it is a common phrase. I don't mind new metaphors, but it seems that to use one that would need to be looked up by more than a handful of readers is maybe not the best way to start a style guide. My main reason for making the comment though was that somebody critisized a replacement for being 'weaker' than rock-ribbed which seemed bizarre. --KayEss 10:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggested rephrasing (please suggest other options below)

The rules in this Manual of Style are not set down as permanent, fixed rules. They do not discuss every scenario that you will come across and must therefore be applied with elasticity. As both Wikipedia and English usage continue to develop, these rules will also change with time

I happen to dislike the CMS's quote, personally, since "rock-ribbed law" has also the implications of hoary, old, and hidebound as well. I do not think this quote should be changed lightly, however. As a possible alternative (unlikely to earn jguk's approval however) may I suggest the final introductroy paragraph of Strunk's Elements of style?

It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules. After he has learned, by their guidance, to write plain English adequate for everyday uses, let him look, for the secrets of style, to the study of the masters of literature.

(or better yet, rule #13 [now #17]: Use no unnecessary words.) - Amgine 18:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I think we should have Wikipedia's own version of the paragraph. There's no real reason why we shouldn't. Perhaps you could either comment on my suggestion, or come up with your own? jguk 22:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine's rule #1: Be brief. (tongue in cheek, of course) - Amgine 22:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Puzzlement and question

I do not understand or accept jguk's bias against external references, in an encyclopedia of all things. And I do not accept that semi-plagiarism is superior to quoting an original, especially when the point of the quotation is partly that it is well said.

That semi-plagiarism unfortunately does occur very commonly in Wikipedia is not a reason to openly encourage it.

What is not acceptable about the passage as it stands? Is it that is an external reference? There is no policy against that. Indeed, external references are encouraged. Is it that happens to be to a U.S. source? Then say no to the chauvinism that cares about such things. If not these reasons, what is bothersome about the original?

Jallan 23:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, there is no consensus to remove the quote.

I also second Jallan's suggestion: If Jguk finds the current style guide so disagreeable, it could be useful for him to draft a new version. Maurreen 03:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we're not talking about changing the policy, but just how it is stated, and there appears to be a majority in favour of a neutral, easy to understand rewriting, we should discuss a sensible replacement. jguk 08:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I repeat, the quotation is an epigraph, a literary device in which a quotation at the beginning of the work sets the tone for what follows. Now that we also have a quotation to the same effect from Fowler, the complaint that the epigraph is American is moot. Put the Fowler in along the Chicago Manual of Style, both emphasizing the point that this is a guide and not a set of unbreakable commandments and move on to something more worthwhile. Unless the objection is to the idea of flexibility, I simply do not see where all this fuss is coming from. To me it seems calculated rather than substantive. I don't think the Jguk has demonstrated a grasp of the issues superior to either Fowler or the University of Chicago Press. Ortolan88 00:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

jguk continues to use neutral in a strange fasion. Neither the original quotation or the suggested substitutes are neutral, nor should they be. This is a style guide. It is not supposed to be neutral in intent. And deciding to remove something from the style guide and replace it with a passage that supposedly means the same is certainly not neutral. (Nor is deciding to keep once the question is raised.) The original is surely quite comprehensible. Do you need to know exactly the precise meaning of rock-ribbed to understand what its intent is the sentence and to feel its force. It is a naturally picturesque word and its rarity (at least today) is part of its charm. The quotation is from the first edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1906) and was restored in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th editions of the work. (The 12th edition was the first recent edition to somewhat soften the very prescriptive and inflexible style of most preceding editions.) Part the reason that quotation is striking is the word rock-ribbed. As to appreciating such words, I cite Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (letter 234), apparently in part in answer to some questioning on the rightness of including rare words in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil:

As for plenilune and argent, they are beautiful words before they are understood – I wish I could have the pleasure of meeting them for the first time again! – and how is one to know them till one does meet them? And surely the first meeting should be in a living context, and not in a dictionary, like dried flowers in a hortus siccus!
...
And the meaning of fine words cannot be made 'obvious', for it is not obvious to any one: least of all to adults, who have stopped listening to the sound because they think they know the meaning. They think argent 'means' silver. But it does not. It and silver have a reference to x or chem. Ag, but in each x is clothed in a totally different phonetic incarnation: x+y or x+z; and these do not have the same meaning, not only because they sound different and so arouse different responses, but also because they are not in fact used when talking about Ag. in the same way. It is better, I think, at any rate to begin with, to hear 'argent' as a sound only (z without x) in a poetic context, than to think 'it only means silver'. There is some chance then that you may like it for itself, and later learn to appreciate the heraldic overtones it has, in addition to its own peculiar sound, which 'silver' has not.

I think that this writing down, flattening, Bible-in-basic-English attitude is responsible for the fact that so many older children and younger people have little respect and no love for words, and very limited vocabularies – and alas! little desire left (even when they had the gift which has been stultified) to refine or enlarge them.

jguk, how is plastic semi-plagiarism better (or more neutral(!)) than quoting the original no matter how many here might support it? Do you dislike recognizing any outside authority? If someone has written a bon mot pleasing to others, that fits into what one wishes to day, quote it.

Your first attempt at a passage to replace the quotation was somewhat different in meaning. Do you agree with the meaning of the quotation? If you do not, surely that should be brought up first and discussed, rather than bringing that up after it has been replaced, (if there really is a consenssus that quotations ought not to be allowed, or that they should be included in Wikipedia on some kind of national quota system.)

Jallan 02:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ortolan and Jallan. Maurreen 07:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Neutrality"

Jguk, because your preference for what you call "neutral language" appears to be at the heart of much of what you do, why don't you have that discussion?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know. Maurreen 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC

Because we are so closely divided, I am listing this at WP:RFC.

The disagreements concern:

The quote at the beginning of style guide.
Fowler's "good" guidelines.
The expressions "period" and "full stop."
The serial comma.
"U.S."

Along the lines Jallan has suggested, I am breaking up the discussion. Maurreen 17:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fowler

Concerning quotation marks, the word "good" was removed from the following: "This is the British style. (Fowler has good guidelines for this." Maurreen 17:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: previous usage more appropriate as we wish to qualify the guidelines as desirable and to be followed. - Amgine 18:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't express our own POV's in articles. See WP:NPOV for details. jguk 22:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you explain to me the purpose of a "Manual of Style"? - Amgine 01:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should have a neutral point of view." My understanding is that use of the word articles rather than pages is a purposeful and careful one, not intended to be enforced on anything but articles (otherwise there could be no policy about NPOV in articles or about anything else).

But the proposed new version only relates the obvious. Surely any reasonably large British style guide for English has material on use of punctuation with quotation marks. Dictionaries often contain such things as well. The remark is silly. However the current version is little better. Of course Fowler's remarks on British use of quotation marks are at least "good". If you want to avoid singling out any one guide, both versions are equally POV, in that they don't mention other discussions in other books, arguably just as good or better, depending on what you want from them. (I know of no attempt to pour through all available style manuals to rate their treatment of punctuation with quotation marks.) The whole matter is not especially complex for most uses and probably most large style guides and manuals that cover this are "good".) I suggest that this be changed to: "A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler and other British style guides, some of which vary in fine details," for there are subtle differences on fine points between guides. The recommendations of Hart's Rules, that of the Oxford Guide to Style, and that of British Standard 5261 differ in their treatment of sentence fragments. But almost no reader except one intent on punctuation notices any of this. Jallan 05:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Amgine and Jallan. Maurreen

The purpose of the Manual of Style, hidden from view by placing it in the first paragraph:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things look alike — it is a style guide. The following rules don't claim to be the last word. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit.

You are welcome. Ortolan88 16:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clarifying where we stand

It appears that jguk is the only person who supports removing the word "good" from the following: "This is the British style. (Fowler has good guidelines for this."

Does anyone else agree with jguk on this issue? Maurreen 17:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, 4 people agreed with all the changes I made (see above). Only 3 people, including yourself, have so far disagreed with this change. jguk 22:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But do they still agree? If so, why do they agree? This is discussion, not a poll.<br/
Again, jguk's removal of the word "good" doesn't make the statement more netural, only less idiomatic. In its context, a sudden note that Fowler discusses the matter implies that Fowler's discussion is "good" just as strongly as inserting the word, otherwise why mention that at all. What is the understood intention of either version in mentioning Fowler in particular as a reference, and as a "good" reference whether or not the word "good" appears? Surely to indicate a place where the reader can go for more information ... even though that is not explicitly stated as its intention. Fowler's discussion is only arguably better than that of other books discussing logical punctuation with quotations. I don't think it is better on worse than others I have seen or have at hand. The reason why the passage mentions Fowler rather than other books is probably 1) because logical punctuation is usually poorly discussed in style guides recommending the alternate method and so it is worthwhile to indicate a particular source or particular sources, 2) because Fowler is later given special status as one of the sources which one should consult when the MoS regulations fail and the only one of those to cover this decently, 3) and because the Burchfield Fowler discussion is far more complete than that in the MoS, and may help in edge cases. I would recommend replacing good with fuller (which indicates precisely the kind of goodness) were it not that the Robert Allen pocket Fowler, the most easily found edition, has reduced the particular discussion to a point where it is very little longer than the discussion in the MoS. Accordingly, either note that the Burchfield Fowler has substantially fuller information, or that this is covered in Fowler and many other British English style guides. Either gives the reader the idea of where they can look for more information. Jallan 23:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jallan. Maurreen 07:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Period

References to the word "period" were changed to "full stop (period)" or something similar. Maurreen 17:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: "full stop" is inappropriate usage in modern English, except among grammarians. ~~(It was until recently an element of British curriculum, and thus may be more accepted there.)~~ To be noted, even grammarians now use the period in contractions such as Dr. and St. (saint). - Amgine 18:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) - Further research suggests full stop may be a developing usage in Brittain, Europe. - Amgine 18:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite simply, we do not generally use "period" on this (the European) side of the Atlantic, indeed those who are less informed would only be aware of its usage to refer to a woman's menstrual cycle. It seems (according to Wikipedia) that technically speaking, "period" is indeed correct even in UK/Irl to refer to the more general case of punctuation - and that the "full stop" is actually specifically only at the end of a sentence. But few here would be aware of this.

I do not know of practices in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or countries using English as a second language - but I would not make assumptions as to them using "period" or "full stop". zoney ♣ talk 20:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This would indicate that "Romantic period" and "period furniture" would have different connotations in Britain than in North America. I doubt it. The use of "period" for an abbreviation dot is perhaps one of Fowler's idiosyncracies, though it may have been common in his "period". I don't mind either name. I do object to my intelligence being offensively insulted by the assumption that I cannot understand what is being talked about unless the equation between "full stop/stop/full point" and "period" is continually pointed out to me on every occasion. I loathe such usage when it appears. People who are offended by differences between various kinds of English deserve to be offended. Equate the two terms on first mention, and then use one or the other in the following text or mix the usage naturally as you would with other synonyms. The MoS should not contain such pedantic twittery. People offended by not seeing such things deserve to be offended. Jallan 05:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It does no good to dismiss those who have a problem with just putting up with US English. It is a clear symbol of US cultural (linguistical?) dominance. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased - and try as people may to suggest that spelling choices are of little consequence, or irrelevant - the use of US spellings is seen as US POV.

As regards "period", well, admittedly, those I have referred to as less informed probably aren't Wikipedia readers (or indeed readers) - I merely brought it up to emphasise common usage on this side of the Atlantic (yes we can equate period with full stop, but it's unnatural). zoney ♣ talk 23:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It does no good to give in to those who have a problem with U.S. spellings or British spellings. Accordingly, I will continue to dismiss opposition to U.S. spellings just as I will dismiss opposition to British spellings. Why shouldn't I when they are of little consequence to me, and I believe of little consquence to most people involved in Wikipedia. People are here expected to put up with all normal spellings, by policy.

Of course U.S. spellings outside of the U.S. derive from U.S. influence. And British spellings outside of Britain derive from British influence. There was still a vast world-wide British empire only fifty years ago, one established mostly by conquest and annexation, far more bloody and vicious than any simple spreading of spelling. You should know about that in Ireland. The Irish language was almost totally destroyed and mostly remains so. What are a few spelling differences between the U.S. and British English in comparion to that cultural dominance of which the U.S. is also a part? The western spread of the original country of the thirteen colonies was no less bloody. Yes, fight U.S. cultural dominance, if you can. But do so by seeking out international films and international books and becoming multi-lingual, or exploring the local heritage of your upbringing. Seek out material from outside whatever the local media pushes at you, whether it is U.S. or British. Fight Britsh cultural dominance and western cultural dominance as well. Xed's systemic bias program in Wikipedia is a good idea, though Xed's manner unfortunately hurts it more than helps it. But U.S. cultural dominance will not be stopped by denigrating spellings that are largely used and taught in schools, just as the spellings you prefer were taught to you in school. English spelling is a horrible mess in any case.

I don't particularly use the spellings I was taught in school. The spellings I use now are those that I currently prefer. I've changed my spelling usage before and am likely to do so again, sometimes for the novelty of the change. I do not see that being dominated by a supposedly foreign culture is logically any worse than being dominated by the common mores of the culture you were brought up in, unless everything you were taught was in every way superior to that foreign culture.

Jallan 03:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mostly I think we all need to just chill. Spelling and usage issues do not need to be about POV. The question is communication: Are there are large number of literate English-speakers who do not understand period used in this sense? Is it going to be enormously jarring to them to see it used without explanation? If so, we should use another word or insert an explanation. If not, there is no need to do so—we ought to assume that our readers are at least literate, after all. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are large numbers of literate English-speakers who are not familiar with US English terms. jguk 06:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zoney, I have read through all the archives for the main style guide. I saw no comments reflecting any lack of understanding of the word "period."

Further, although Jguk keep talking about "neutrality," he has subordinated "period" to "full stop." Maurreen 07:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm, try as I might, the best I can do is to use one term first and then offer explanation for those who usually use another completely different term. jguk 07:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that period is defined as a full stop, eg "period (full stop)" and full stop is used throughout the rest of the document so that Americans, if they do not already know, can understand what a full stop is. If this seems odd to American readers then perhaps they can understand why period looks odd to many others. In most (all?) English speaking countries apart from the US^h^h North America, if a dot appears anywhere but at the end of a sentence then, unless it is a decimal point, it is usually called a full stop or a dot. If it is at the end of a sentence it is always a full stop. A dot is never called a period. I would not want to be an American exchange teacher called Randy, who tried to tell a class of 13 year olds in the UK or Ireland that a full stop was a period! Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the second time someone has attempted to put this nonsense into the discussion. What of an American exchange teacher or a Britsh teacher who speaks of any of the periods required to be spoken of in British schools?[4]? But I have no objection at all to something like your suggestion being implemented, especially as it is becoming obvious on this page that some who know North American usage really do not realize that period and full stop are part of a division between North America on one side and Britain, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand on the other, that there is a fundamental difference in common usage.

Do some equivalent of a coin flip to choose which term will appear as the primary one (on this page, not throughout Wikipedia), equate it with the other on first use, and perhaps use the other also as a synonym if it flows naturally. But no part of the MoS should be written in a style that would give any support to the idea that one should throughout Wikipedia use forms like "gas/petrol", "petrol/gas", "gas (petrol)", "petrol (gas)" on every occurrence. That different forms of English appear in different articles (and sometimes within the same articles) is accepted here. Let the reader mostly see such forms as actually used, not in stilted and artificial joins.

What we really need is a style guide of international English usage, one which gives advice on such issues, where others have faced the same problems. But I know of no such work. Jallan 03:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jallan three thoughts:

My wife, who is Irish, has come to the conclusion that the English had an empire so that they could loose to someone at cricket. And that the whole empire thing would never have happened if only the Celtic nations had played the game.
Explaining jokes always leave them flat. But in an attempt at mutual understanding... It is not that the word "period" is not used in context in the UK. For example in the school I went to classes were called "periods". The point I was making was to do with "school boy humour", which to be PC should be "school child humour", where for example children will snigger at the use of the word "it" because in their minds they are substituting "it" with "sex" or more vulgar word. They do not do it all of the time, but once it is triggered in their minds they will do it until an adults patience is well and truly tried. I don't know if American children do this, but using the word "period" out of context would be guaranteed to trigger that sort of response in a British school. (BTW "Randy" has a common meaning in the UK and it is not a name a teacher would ever use. As it was used with this meaning in an episode of Friends, I guess that it must also have that meaning among some in the U.S.) Philip Baird Shearer

Clarifying "period"

If the issue is a matter of potentially not understanding the word "period", I'm sure there must be a smoother way to solve the problem. For example, why not use both "period" and "full stop" the first time, and link further instances of the word "period" to further explanation? Maurreen 07:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not use both "period" and "full stop" the first time, and link further instances of the phrase "full stop" to further explanation?

It is not a matter of potentially not understanding the word "period", it is as zoney wrote "It is a clear symbol of US cultural (linguistical?) dominance" as the phrase "full stop" does not appear to have the same connotations on the other side of the pond why not use it instead? Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is to some degree an issue of understanding too - the word "period" is never used on this side of the Atlantic to refer to a full stop. So conceiveably anyone who is perfectly literate in English but not familiar with American practice would just have to discern its meaning from the context. Now the meaning is fairly clear from the context, but it's quite offensive to insist on non-US readers being forced to "translate" from US English - particularly in an important document such as this. zoney ♣ talk 12:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On two occasions I have randomly polled the non-U.S. contributors in the IRC as to "period" and "full-stop"; all have understood the period to be equivalent to full-stop, the New Zealanders in particular couldn't decide which was more common in their schooling, but felt the full-stop was probably a bit more widely understood. In comparison, almost none of the Canadian or united staters understood full-stop. Thus the doctrine of least harm would suggest full-stop is likely to cause more confusion than the use of period. - Amgine 02:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Serial comma

This:

"As stated by Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, and other authoritative sources, when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: 'The wires were brown, blue, and green.' The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit."

Was changed to this:

"When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma should be used before the conjunction to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. For example: 'The wires were brown, blue, and green'."

Maurreen 17:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Previous usage is preferred as it provides further resources for contributors, and more clearly explains the usage as well as providing additional examples of the usage. - Amgine 18:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The revised version is shorter, to the point, avoids making claims that imply "authoritative" sources are universally inclined to the point, doesn't cite three US guides and, as it is a much shorter sentence, is much easier to read. This is a Manual of Style. If you want a list of style guides so you can look at further resources, read style guide, which is where such information properly belongs. jguk 22:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jongarrettuk is at least correct in that style guide should be referred to. I suggest "or other authoritative sources". - Amgine 01:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explanation is helpful when Wikipedia's rules are not exactly the same as those that a particular Wikipedia editor may have encountered elswhere. In such cases, it is a courtesy to the reader to explain the rationale behind a rules, whether it is some special logic pertaining to Wikipedia alone, or that the rule is widely practiced, in which case giving sources establishes this. And the reasoning behind it should also be given in such cases. The MoS mostly does this and the current wording does this. If it bothers that only U.S. sources are listed, then add The Oxford Manual of Style at least, which is very oddly conspicuous in not being cited for what is sometimes called the "Oxford comma". Until such time as subpages for each point in the style guide appear, where supporting material and debate can be included, such material should remain on the page. Explanations prevent new editors from raising again and again the same unnecessary questions on issues, particularly when readers may not have noticed the variation in practice in reality and wonder why Wikipedia has a rule when no-one else does it that way ... they may wrongly believe. (Readers, including myself, are inclined not to particularly notice practice which differs from their own, which is one reason so many of us still have to look up in grammar books the proper rule for some fancy punctuation even though we may have seen examples of it again and again, and why we have too look up spelling or use spell checkers. It is not unusual for a reader who has not been taught to use a mandatory serial comma to be mostly unaware how widely used the alternative practice is, and vice versa, as a reader generally reads for meaning and punctuation is normally only subconsciously perceived. This applies to many other fine points of grammar and spelling. There is a tentency for people who are part of a larger group to sometimes assume that the practices that they use and the vocabulary that they are familiar with and the style of language they best know and the exact rules they were taught in school are more normal than they actually are.) Brevity is not always the most important quality and should always give way to usefulness and completeness. Also, the works mentioned are all as authoritative as such books can be in their fields (which does not mean, of course), that there are not opposing authorities. Jallan 03:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Amgine and Jallan. Maurreen 07:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you think the advice needs explanation, write a subarticle on the topic. I also note that the article Oxford comma contains little reference to any source material or quotations. Maybe you could develop that article and add "See also: Oxford comma" to direct readers to a more detailed discussion on the subject. jguk 07:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clarifying where we stand

Does anyone besides jguk agree with the change made about serial commas, as shown in the beginning of this section? Maurreen 17:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, 4 people agreed with all the changes I made (see above). Only 3 people, including yourself, have so far disagreed with the change about Oxford commas. jguk 19:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would be happy with the changed text, except that it leaves open the possibility that a bold editor will just change the policy, unchecked by supporting citations. On the other hand, adding a selected set of references just seems to foment argument, so perhaps that's a wash. I think User:Jallan's subpages for references (with accompanying Talk pages) and jguk's suggestion of a subarticle on this frequently contested topic are worth considering. (That wasn't very clarifying, was it? ☺) — Jeff Q 20:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find the new, short version much clearer than the original. Citing references may be a good thing, but put them after the explanation, something like:

When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma should be used before the conjunction to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. For example: 'The wires were brown, blue, and green'. (This is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other authorative sources.)

As an aside, the argument about confusion only makes sense since this rule exists. Other languages, such as Dutch and Swedish, do never use a comma in such constructions. Moreover, based on the argument, you would also need to place a comma if there are only two elements. -- Han-Kwang (talk) 21:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The two-element case does not apply, as the rule (no matter which version you follow) specifically states "three or more". English style guides typically reinforce this by explicitly pointing out that there are no commas when the word "and" occurs between each parallel term in the series (e.g., "red and blue and green"). But this isn't really the place to debate serial/Oxford comma usage, just its MoS phrasing. — Jeff Q 22:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then ditch the remark about confusion and write: When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma should be used before the conjunction. For example: 'The wires were brown, blue, and green'. (This is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other authorative sources.)

By the way, I don't feel that this whole discussion is such an important issue, but I strolled in through the RfC page -- Han-Kwang (talk) 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because jguk's change essentially had two elements (removing the references and weakening the style), I'd like to find out where we stand on each of those. Maurreen 07:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comma references

I prefer to keep references, for reasons stated by Jallan. I also agree with Han-Kwang's suggestion of putting the references at the end of the paragraph, instead of the beginning. Maurreen 07:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is what The Economist's style guide has to say on the subject of commas [5]

Do not put a comma before and at the end of a sequence of items unless one of the items includes another and. Thus The doctor suggested an aspirin, half a grapefruit and a cup of broth. But he ordered scrambled eggs, whisky and soda, and a selection from the trolley.

Additionally when discussing semi-colons [6] they stipulate

Use them to distinguish phrases listed after a colon if commas will not do the job clearly. Thus, They agreed on only three points: the ceasefire should be immediate; it should be internationally supervised, preferably by the AU; and a peace conference should be held, either in Geneva or in Ouagadougou

I find the comma in the example about wires looks very odd (and slightly illiterate), but that's probably down to growing up in the UK.

Anyway, I can't say that it worries me too much, but thought that a British reference might be interesting. --KayEss 11:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comma weakening

I prefer not to weaken the style, mainly because jguk has provided insufficient justification, in my view. Maurreen 07:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Using this final serial comma at all

I participated in a discussion on this earlier - and indeed was not alone in objecting to the blanket nature of this guideline. Generally the practice I am accustomed to, is not to use a comma before the final conjunction - unless it is necessary to avoid confusion. So in summary - I object to both versions presented above. I do not consider it necessary that we insist on the final serial comma except in cases where confusion would otherwise arise. zoney ♣ talk 13:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more and am frankly getting tired of all this attempting to enforce trivial rules via the MoS. There are many flavours of English in the world and there is no reason for an international project like this to attempt to legislate in favour of one or two of them over all the others. All literate variations should be accepted. Filiocht 13:04, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

"U.S."

This:

"When referring to the United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this."

Was changed to this:

"When referring to the United States, using "U.S." rather than ";US" makes it easier to search for automatically. It is also the more common style in that country."

Maurreen 17:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: although neither form is perfect, the former is at least not inaccurate or confusing. - Amgine 18:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The last clause is certainly inaccurate - half of those expressing an opinion in a recent poll voted to remove the advice in its entirety. jguk 00:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current phrasing is not justifiable. No one can claim authoritatively that either usage is "more common". One can say that "U.S." is the form preferred by The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual. Other American style guides have mixed opinions, as I recall:

The Chicago Manual of Style is flexible, but leans toward USGPO.
Strunk & White doesn't address this, but uses "U.S." in its examples for other style issues, implying agreement with USGPO.
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage avoids periods in "acronyms", but doesn't specifically address "U.S." or "US". (They have a tendency to leave out punctuation perceived as unnecessary for meaning.)
The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing explicitly recommends "US".
Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors and the Prentice Hall Style Manual find both forms acceptable.

I would suggest rephrasing this to cite USGPO as a reasonable authority, rather than an unsupportable "more common" practice. — Jeff Q 21:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My version of the The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999) has an entry specifically for "U.S.", with periods.

Also, the Associated Press style guide uses "U.S.", with periods. Maurreen 07:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chicago may be flexible, but quite clearly recognizes that "U.S." is the traditional form—so traditional that even "no-period-in abbreviations hardliners" at CMS must genuflect in that direction: 15.5 "Traditionalists may draw the line at "PhD" or "US" (Chicago bows to tradition on the latter)"; 15.34 "U.S." or "US." Except in scientific style, U.S. traditionally appears with periods. Periods may nonetheless be omitted in most contexts. Writers and editors need to weigh tradition against consistency. In running text, the abbreviation (in either form) is permissible when used as an adjective, but United States as a noun should be spelled out." - Nunh-huh 07:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must be in error on NYT, because I was using the same edition when I scribbled notes from it several months ago. My notes on CMoS simply said "flexible, but follows USGPO"; clearly, Nunh-huh's detailed statement is more useful than my vague assertion. (I wish I could afford to keep a few of these useful tomes on my bookshelf!) Anyway, my original point is still valid — there is no source given (and no likely credible one) for the claim that "U.S." is "more common". I still think a reasonable authoritative source should be given for the policy, and I think USGPO is the most reasonable one to give, as it is not just an American style guide but has extra topical credibility. It's nice to know there is more support than I expected for the USGPO policy. — Jeff Q 01:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to simply replace the last sentence with "It is also the style recommended by the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual"? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and put a slightly stronger version of this suggestion in:

It is also the style preferred by many U.S. style guides, including the one published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

I should have done it earlier rather than jabber about it. ☺ — Jeff Q 02:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed it. Given the general state of discussion, and the clear divide between US and non-US editors on this talk page at the moment, it doesn't seem like a good time to add even more US-explicit references to the Manual. jguk 06:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with referring to a U.S. style guide when talking about the U.S. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would agree that advancing an American usage is not appropriate general policy, but we are talking about the abbreviation for United States. It's entirely appropriate to recommend "U.S." based on American English usage, just as it is appropriate to recommend "UK" based on British English usage. Also, there is apparently only one non-U.S. editor engaged in this debate thus far (based on my very unscientific review of User pages, focusing on spellings for those who don't identify their origins). One vocal opponent does not a trend make. Are their any other interested Commonwealth citizens who wish to chime in on this issue? — Jeff Q 14:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The style guide isn't really purely a style guide, it's more a guide to usage abnd sometimes its recommendations are based on considerations other than good style. The only strong justification for using U.S. throughout (and I think it's a good one) is not stylistic but practical. It's easier to find U.S. using a search engine. It also happens to coincide with one fairly popular English usage in the USA. As a Brit I have absolutely no problem with that usage. The quibbles about the actual wording in the guide, I'll leave to those who care about that kind of thing. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that this seems like much ado about nothing; does it matter which one is used? As for the search engine, I just googled US, seems that form will do, too. By the way, I'm a native speaker, not from the US, but not a 'Commonwealth citizen' (whatever that is) either. (I'm Irish). Filiocht 15:19, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

"Commonwealth citizen" was my concise attempt to embrace the wider non-U.S. English-speaking world. Obviously, I fell short. ☺ And speaking of practical justification, the main one (only one?) given for picking one or the other form seems to be for searching, but I just did a Wikipedia (not Google) search on "U.S.", "US", "u.s.", and "us", and not one of them returned a single result. (I suspect this is affected by the mysterious "stop word" lists, whose definition I did not find within Wikidom, even in relevant articles.) Even if one is trying to find something like "U.S. Constitution", one seems more likely to quickly find what one is looking for by dropping the qualifier and using Wikipedia's excellent link system than by meticulously searching for every acceptable variation on the abbreviation. Unless a standard is imposed and enforced (which ain't gonna happen), one will never be sure one is fetching all relevant materials by doing any of these searches. Maybe this whole argument is completely pointless. — Jeff Q 16:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and, of course, am not really bothered by the Commonwealth thing. I do get bothered by the notion that there are two types of English (US and Other). There are lots, and no rule will satisfy all. Consequently, for matters as trivial as this, I prefer the principle of benign neglect (otherwise known as 'do nothing'). Filiocht 16:28, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonably pointless argument. It's pretty unlikely we will standardise across Wikipedia, and indeed I would use both US and U.S. depending on the context. For official US topics I would lean towards U.S. - e.g. I support U.S. National Monument not US National Monument (and of course, the latter should probably be a redir - there is some issue here with the random use of either).

There's probably reasonably few English speakers (as a first language) who are non-US and non-Commonwealth apart from us Irish! zoney ♣ talk 16:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, as to usage, this has already been brought up in poll created by jguk. While the poll was close, a majority voted for no change. And generally consensus for change in Wikipedia must be higher than simple majority, unless the poll so indicated. My vote was against was mainly because changes are generally bad in such matters. Who is going to change everything from one format to the other? There are lots occurrences of "U.S." in Wikipedia. Many people, including myself, do make changes in articles to bring them into accord with the MoS. Why should that work be undone without reason? Follow the standard unless there is good reason in a particular case to deviate from it, and then record that reason on the talk page. And, since when usage differs, one rule is often as good or bad as another, don't make substantial changes in the MoS lightly, especially for long established rules, since a current rule is probably no worse than any other. Leave it alone. However, as Filiocht points out, the ease of search argument seems to be invalid. That at least should be removed from the statement. The third non-Commonwealth country besides the U.S. and Ireland with a large English-speaking population is South Africa. But no-one really knows the number of people who can write reasonably good English as a second language. There are a lot of them involved in the English language Wikipedia.

As to nationality, there are knee-jerk POV editors in Wikipedia who push their national and religious opinions to the ultimate extent and others who bend over backwards not to do so. I'm Canadian, if that matters. I don't think it does, other than in discussions that happen to relate to particularly Canadian matters (and even in that area someone of another nationality may know things that I don't). Also, like Filiocht's Irish nationality, being a Canadian provides a rather sardonic view of attempts by jguk to divide the English-speaking world into American and British, a very non-neutral way of regarding things. Nationalism is provincialism. Making the Wikipedia less US-centric is a good thing because it makes it less provincial. But jguk appears to me to favor an excluding neutralization, an artificial neutering, that would make Wikipedia as a whole more provincial. I favor inclusion. Neutrality in respect to sources means to me not caring much about the origin of a source, whether U.S., Canadian, Australian, Sri Lankan, Iraqi, provided it is a good source for its purpose. But put in a variety of sources. And don't be unneutral in removing every U.S. reference you find, just because it can be replaced with something else. I don't see the problem with referring to a U.S. style guide when talking about the U.S. or talking about anything if it is a good style guide. British and U.S. and Canadian style guides give much the same advice on many issues, and differences between particular guides are often not based on national differences at all.

Jallan 05:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For one thing, the poll jguk cites was biased anyway. He set out rationale for his proposal prominently, but rationale against was buried.

Concerning search capability, I think finding a true scientific answer could be more trouble than it's worth.

Does anyone agree with jguk on his apparent distaste for either:

citing references in general in the style guide, or
citing references from the United States in the style guide? Maurreen 08:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This question is answered above. 4 agreed straightaway with all the changes I made. Your second point is not well-worded - I am not singly out the United States (as you know as you opposed my removing the explicit reference to Fowler a while ago). We should link to further guidance (either in the Wikipedia or article namespace). Those articles should have the examples you cite.

Also, on the US point - has anyone answered why having "U.S." is meant to make it easier to search for the term (I can't think of any circumstance where it is at the mo). If someone knows the answer to this, I'd be grateful if they would post it. jguk 08:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hyphens

Aside from the discussion about different kinds of dashes, is there advice, here or on one of the other pages, about when to use a hyphen in spelling a word? For example, I usually use a hyphen if the prefix re is attached to a word beginning with a vowel, so as not to create a false dipthong that might momentarily confuse the reader: re-elect, re-align, etc. I bring this up because I've seen an edit that, among other changes, deleted such hyphens, changing previous forms to reelected and reestablish. (Hyphens are also appropriate when the prefix could otherwise be read as creating a different word, e.g., to sign again is re-sign because resign means something else.) JamesMLane 19:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But I forget where it is. I have most definitely read a sensible set of guidelines here on Wikipedia on its usage though. zoney ♣ talk 20:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we don't know where it is, how about we add it? Here's the rule from the AP style guide:

"Except for 'cooperate' and 'coordinate', use a hypen if the prefix ends in a vowel and the word that follows begins with the same vowel."

Of course, if anyone can word this better, or would like to use a different style guide as a source, that is fine with me. Maurreen 07:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that's not the entire entry. Maurreen 05:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would also hyphenate re-align and other such words, though not covered by the rule you suggest. A reader seeing realign has seen enough words using "real" as a beginning that there'd be a momentary hitch while the reader sorts out that this isn't the familia ea combination and the familiar "real" beginning, but something else. The hyphen averts that. By the way, does the AP guide also address instances like re-sign? JamesMLane 07:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's one of the examples the AP Stylebook gives for the handling of the re prefix. "For many other words, the sense is the governing factor: ... resign (quit) re-sign (sign again)". Our style guide should probably state this position as well, as there's great potential for confusion otherwise; I once heard of an instance in which someone forwarded an email from her boss, and told him "I resent your email." Factitious 08:14, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good points, and some humor, too, which this page needs. :) Maurreen 08:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I may have been only be thinking of what I had read at hyphen. If there are guidelines on hyphen usage already, or we are drafting such, we should probably ensure that article matches our practice. zoney ♣ talk 23:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting that the article on hyphen misuses a hyphen, in the phrase "slightly-tilted slash". I'll correct that and add the point that a compound phrase in which an adverb modifies an adjective, with the phrase then modifying a noun, generally doesn't need a hyphen because it's unambiguous. (In this example, "slightly" can't modify "slash".) Perhaps we should include this in the MoS. Even if we do, people will still write "wholly-owned subsidiary", but we can at least try to stop them. JamesMLane 00:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the word is listed in a standard dictionary, then no hyphen should be used. Lots of dictionaries list "realign" and "reelect" as words, and therefore no hyphen should be used. If a word with "re" in front of it is not a standard form but rather a neologism, then use the hyphen ("re-") until the word is common enough to become a standard form. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:46, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

But User:Factitious's comments about the differences between "resent" and "re-sent" and similar words have merit, so hyphens should be used in those cases to make clear what is meant. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to remove consistent synonym recommendation.

Archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spelling 3). Maurreen 10:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)